For a while last week, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) was the most hated man on Capitol Hill. His sin? He tried to prevent a “voice vote” whereby none of his colleagues would have gone on the record. He wanted his fellow members of Congress to have to formally cast their votes for or against the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus stimulus bill, which is the largest spending bill in history.

Politicians complained that his “stunt” would delay the bill and put the health of members of Congress in danger.

The bill wasn’t delayed by holding the vote. Massie had warned his colleagues a day before the vote so that enough congressmen had time to get back for the vote. There were enough members present for a quorum and a recorded vote. Votes typically take an entire 15 minutes.

By demanding a quorum, Massie forced more than half of the House of Representatives to be present for the vote. If members were really so concerned for their health, they could have practiced social distancing. It may have taken fifteen minutes longer, but votes could easily have been staggered. The Congressmen could also have worn gloves and facemasks and avoided touching their faces.

“These people need to do their jobs,” Massie told reporters after the bill passed by voice vote on Friday. “If they are telling people to drive a truck, if they are telling people to bag groceries, and grow their food, then by golly they can be there, and they can vote. . . . The truth, if you are willing to report it, is that they didn’t want a recorded vote.”

For four hours, hundreds of members of Congress made speeches about the bill from the House floor. But they apparently didn’t have time to vote. Either that or the politicians who loaded the bill with wasteful spending weren’t proud to vote for it.

If everyone was so concerned about getting this passed quickly, Democratic leaders sure had a strange way of showing it. There was no similar outcry against Speaker Nancy Pelosi for delaying the House vote until a day-and-a-half after passage in the Senate. Democrats had already slowed down the Senate bill by nearly a week, thanks to demanding items that would further their agenda on carbon emissions, abortion, and voter laws.

A soon-to-be-released 255-page report from a congressionally mandated commission recommends that women, in addition to men, be subject to a United States military draft, should one be imposed. So reported Lara Seligman at Politico on Tuesday based on a review of the report that Politico obtained early. Seligman further relates that the “11-member commission’s final report, which was required by the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, was briefed to the Pentagon on Monday and will be presented to the White House and congressional staffers Tuesday.”

This report will likely add substantially to the already strong momentum in Congress behind requiring women to register with Selective Service and be subject to any future draft — the same requirements long imposed on American men.

In 2017, the Department of Defense expressed its support of extending such draft requirements to women. It did so via a report the Defense Department delivered to the US Senate and House of Representatives Armed Services Committees as required by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2017.

With the new report reinforcing the Defense Department’s earlier conclusion, be ready for Selective Service registration and draft requirements for women to be pushed strongly in the House and Senate. In 2016, such women draft requirements were included in the 2017 NDAA versions initially approved by the House Armed Services Committee and by the full Senate, though the final enacted legislation instead called for study of the matter by the Defense Department and the newly reporting commission.]]>http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2020/march/24/draft-women-too-concludes-congressionally-mandated-commission/
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2020/march/24/draft-women-too-concludes-congressionally-mandated-commission/Tue, 24 Mar 2020 19:19:24 GMT Rep. Thomas Massie Rebukes House Leadership for Pushing Lobbyists-and-Deep State-Drafted PATRIOT Act Reauthorization BillAdam Dickhttp://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2020/march/11/rep-thomas-massie-rebukes-house-leadership-for-pushing-lobbyists-and-deep-state-drafted-patriot-act-reauthorization-bill/ Massie explains in his speech that the bill to be considered today on the House floor — much sooner than regular House rules prescribe — will violate US Constitution protections, including protections in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments related to warrants, due process, and probable cause. Masse further describes the bill as promoting the use of “star chambers and kangaroo courts” that fail to protect individual rights.

Allowing the regular committee process to proceed, asserts Massie, could have permitted light to be brought to problems of the legislation, as well as allowed the adopting in committee of amendments that would reduce or eliminate those problems. And, of course, allowing more time for the legislation to be reviewed before a vote, instead of speeding up the process, would have given House members time to read and understand the faults of the legislation and given constituents time to learn about the bill and contact their representatives in opposition.

Watch Massie’s House floor speech here:

The process Massie describes in his speech brings to mind the similar manner in which the original PATRIOT Act was drafted and quickly pushed through the House.

Massie is an Advisory Board member for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.]]>http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2020/march/11/rep-thomas-massie-rebukes-house-leadership-for-pushing-lobbyists-and-deep-state-drafted-patriot-act-reauthorization-bill/
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2020/march/11/rep-thomas-massie-rebukes-house-leadership-for-pushing-lobbyists-and-deep-state-drafted-patriot-act-reauthorization-bill/Wed, 11 Mar 2020 17:37:41 GMT That US House-Passed Resolution Supposedly Opposing War Against IranAdam Dickhttp://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2020/january/13/that-us-house-passed-resolution-supposedly-opposing-war-against-iran/

Last week there was much media coverage of the United Sates House of Representatives voting to approve a resolution (H. Con. Res. 83) commonly described as seeking to prevent the Trump administration from engaging in war against Iran. However, take a look at the wording of the resolution, says foreign intervention opponent and former House member Ron Paul, and you will find that most of the resolution is purposed “to build up animosity” toward Iran. Paul discussed the resolution in a new interview with host Anand Naidoo at the CGTN show The Heat.

Indeed, the resolution is chock-full of talking points in favor of war with Iran. It starts with declarations that Iran is “a leading state sponsor of terrorism and engages in a range of destabilizing activities across the Middle East” and that Iran General Qassim Suleimani, whose assassination was carried out upon President Donald Trump’s order, was “the lead architect of much of Iran's destabilizing activities throughout the world.”

The resolution goes on to even declare the US has a “national interest” in “supporting the people of Iraq, Iran, and other countries throughout the Middle East who demand an end to government corruption and violations of basic human rights.” That sure sounds like a call for the US to engage in intervention, even including regime-change efforts, in Iran and beyond.

The resolution also says the US “has national interests in preserving its partnership with Iraq and other countries in the region.” That does not seem like a call for reduced intervention, especially considering that those other partners presumably include Saudi Arabia and Israel that, aided by the US, have been busy pursuing military attacks across the Middle East.

When the resolution, at its conclusion, proclaims its prohibition of US military action against Iran, the resolution also provides exceptions to that prohibition. In these exceptions is an exception that pretty much sums up the main, and deceitful, justification the executive branch has been offering for recent US military actions against Iran. The resolution says it is OK for the “United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or Military” if “such use of the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an imminent armed attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.”

So much for Congress standing up against the executive branch and standing up for peace.

Read the resolution here:

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES TO ENGAGE IN HOSTILITIES IN OR AGAINST IRAN.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The Government of Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism and engages in a range of destabilizing activities across the Middle East. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was the lead architect of much of Iran's destabilizing activities throughout the world.

(2) The United States has an inherent right to self-defense against imminent armed attacks. The United States maintains the right to ensure the safety of diplomatic personnel serving abroad.

(3) In matters of imminent armed attacks, the executive branch should indicate to Congress why military action was necessary within a certain window of opportunity, the possible harm that missing the window would cause, and why the action was likely to prevent future disastrous attacks against the United States.

(4) The United States has national interests in preserving its partnership with Iraq and other countries in the region, including by—

(A) combating terrorists, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS);

(B) preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability; and

(C) supporting the people of Iraq, Iran, and other countries throughout the Middle East who demand an end to government corruption and violations of basic human rights.

(5) Over the past eight months, in response to rising tensions with Iran, the United States has introduced over 15,000 additional forces into the Middle East.

(6) When the United States uses military force, the American people and members of the United States Armed Forces deserve a credible explanation regarding such use of military force.

(7) The War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.) requires the President to consult with Congress ``in every possible instance'' before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.

(8) Congress has not authorized the President to use military force against Iran.

(b) Termination.--Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military, unless—

(1) Congress has declared war or enacted specific statutory authorization for such use of the Armed Forces; or

(2) such use of the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an imminent armed attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces, consistent with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be construed—

(1) to prevent the President from using military force against al Qaeda or associated forces;

(2) to limit the obligations of the executive branch set forth in the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.);

(3) to affect the provisions of an Act or joint resolution of Congress specifically authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities against Iran or any part of its government or military that is enacted after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution;

(4) to prevent the use of necessary and appropriate military force to defend United States allies and partners if authorized by Congress consistent with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution; or

Decade after decade, United States presidents order intervention, by the military and otherwise, across the Middle East. And, decade after decade, the US House of Representatives and Senate provide the funding for the intervention to continue, as well as pass bills and resolutions demanding even more.

On some occasions, such as after the US government’s killing in Iraq last week of Iran General Qassim Suleimani upon the order of President Donald Trump, there is some complaining from congressional leadership in addition to from the Congress members who regularly oppose foreign intervention.

Now, in the wake of the US government’s killing of Suleimani and others last week in Iraq, it appears votes on limiting US intervention in the Middle East, at least in relation to Iran, may occur soon in the House and Senate. Still, there is plenty of reason to be skeptical that Congress will do anything soon that places significant restraint on the actions the executive branch, including the US military and US intelligence agencies, may take in regard to the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who supports major curtailment of US interventions across the world and is a member of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity’s Advisory Board, sums up well the situation in Congress. Quoted in a Tuesday Vice article, Massie explains:

'At the end of the day, too many Congressional Republicans and Democrats, including [US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)], want to keep us in the quagmire in the Middle East, so I doubt anything with teeth will pass,' Massie said. 'If something of any substance did pass both chambers, it couldn’t sustain a presidential veto.'

The entire article, by Cameron Joseph and Daniel Newhauser, is informative about the situation in Congress now in regard to US intervention in Iran, the Middle East, and beyond. You can read the article here.]]>http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2020/january/08/congress-unlikely-to-significantly-restrain-us-intervention-in-the-middle-east/
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2020/january/08/congress-unlikely-to-significantly-restrain-us-intervention-in-the-middle-east/Wed, 08 Jan 2020 21:09:16 GMT The Absurdity of Today’s Impeachment Vote Captured in One TweetAdam Dickhttp://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/december/18/the-absurdity-of-today-s-impeachment-vote-captured-in-one-tweet/

On the United States House of Representatives floor today, representatives have lined up to speak in solemn tones about how they are fulfilling of their oaths of office and defending America from grave danger by voting to impeach President Donald Trump.

Over at Twitter today, politics writer James Bovard calls rubbish on this morality play taking place in the House. In one tweet he shows the absurdity of the impeachment vote. Bovard writes:

If Trump, instead of calling the Ukraine president, had instead sent 10,000 U.S. combat troops to defend Kiev, he would not be facing impeachment. Blundering into wars is a harmless error according to Congress. #ImpeachmentDay

]]>http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/december/18/the-absurdity-of-today-s-impeachment-vote-captured-in-one-tweet/
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/december/18/the-absurdity-of-today-s-impeachment-vote-captured-in-one-tweet/Wed, 18 Dec 2019 18:29:09 GMT Rep. Thomas Massie is Preparing to be Taken as a Christmas HostageAdam Dickhttp://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/november/21/rep-thomas-massie-is-preparing-to-be-taken-as-a-christmas-hostage/

Speaking Wednesday evening with host Kennedy at Fox Business, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) predicted that the shenanigans this week to pass a continuing resolution providing short-term funding for the United States government and extra big-government goodies including authorization for mass surveillance, all without US House of Representatives members having time to adequately review the legislation, is not the end of the story.

Come December 20, Massie predicts congressional leadership “will come in a closed room” with Massie and other representatives “and they’ll say ‘OK now we’ve got the really big omnibus and, if you vote for this, you can go home for Christmas, but, if you don’t vote for it and it fails, we’re gonna make you stay here over Christmas and New Years.’”

An omnibus bill throws together funding for many different parts of the US government at the last minute instead of debates and votes being held over time on separate spending categories-based bills.

“It’s almost like a dystopian future,” continued Massie in the interview, saying that previously when he has been in the closed room House members start “chanting ‘vote, vote, vote, vote’ and people run up there and vote for something they have not read.” Concludes Massie regarding this recurring phenomenon: “There’s some Stockholm syndrome going on where like the hostages are superexcited to vote for their own doom, or for the doom of the American people.”

Watch here Massie’s complete interview, in which he also discusses the peculiar situation of House members, who say President Donald Trump is abusing presidential powers, voting to authorize and fund everything Trump is doing, as well as why Massie recently voted against sanctions on China.

People say there is too little bipartisanship in Washington, DC. But, when it comes to protecting the United States government’s mass surveillance program, there is plenty of bipartisan action by Democratic and Republican leaders. This was on display Wednesday morning in the opening comments of US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins (R-GA) during a hearing at which the committee debated and voted on the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act.

Collins started off his opening statement by thanking Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) for putting into the widely-considered “must pass” continuing resolution approved on the House floor the day before a provision extending authorization used in pursuing the US government’s mass surveillance program. Collins stated:

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I will address the MORE Act … but I do want to make a few introductions and some discussion today on some observation of this morning’s business. First, I want to say “thank you” to the chairman for moving temporary [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)] reauthorization via yesterday’s continuing resolution [(CR)]. I do not support the CR for several reasons on a bigger level, but that part I appreciate your work with, because I do support a temporary FISA extension. It would be completely unreasonable to expect our members to vote for a long-term FISA reauthorization when we are expecting in short order a report from the [Department of Justice] Inspector General on that very topic. So, again, thank you for moving that, and I want to thank [Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)] in particular for his partnership and leadership in that effort.

Of course, the House Judiciary Committee itself could have debated an extension of a few months that, after an affirmative committee vote, could have been considered on the House floor. This did not happen.

Sensenbrenner, who Collins mentioned, introduced the USA PATRIOT Act that was quickly pushed through Congress back in October of 2001 when Sensenbrenner was the Judiciary Committee chairman. Then, in 2014 after the US government’s mass spying program was revealed, Sensenbrenner introduced a new bill — the USA FREEDOM Act — that purportedly would restrain the mass surveillance but in reality allowed the mass surveillance to continue.

On Tuesday, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) provided a short, critical analysis of the insertion of the mass surveillance program language into the CR. You can read Massie’s analysis here. In his analysis, Massie mentions the then-upcoming House floor votes on the rule to consider the CR and on passage of the CR. Those votes, taken on Tuesday, may be found, respectively, here and here.

Today, while everyone is distracted by the impeachment drama, Congress will vote to extend warrantless data collection provisions of the #PatriotAct, by hiding this language on page 25 of the Continuing Resolution (CR) that temporarily funds the government. To sneak this through, Congress will first vote to suspend the rule which otherwise gives us (and the people) 72 hours to consider a bill.

The scam here is that Democrats are alleging abuse of Presidential power, while simultaneously reauthorizing warrantless power to spy on citizens that no President should have... in a bill that continues to fund EVERYTHING the President does... and waiving their own rules to do it.

I predict Democrats will vote on a party line to suspend the 72 hour rule. But after the rule is suspended, I suspect many Republicans will join most Democrats to pass the CR with the Patriot Act extension embedded in it.

It’s quite possible that your member of Congress doesn’t even know the Patriot Act reauthorization is in the CR. Here’s a phone directory of the House of Representatives.https://www.house.gov/representatives

At the end of today, I will post the roll call vote on the resolution to waive the 72 hour rule, as well as the roll call vote for passage of the CR that contains the Patriot Act extension.

New Pew Research Center poll results indicate Americans’ support for marijuana legalization continues to grow, with support reaching two-thirds among those questioned and maintaining majorities among Democrats, Republicans, and independents. This state of popular opinion, along with marijuana law liberalization continuing to move forward at state and local levels, are among the factors suggesting the time is ripe for legalization on the national level.

However, the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is not moving forward with a clean bill to repeal marijuana prohibition that would garner widespread public support and have a good chance of both passing in the Republican-controlled Senate and receiving President Donald Trump’s signature. Instead, the committee is scheduled to consider on Wednesday legislation that, in addition to national legalization, contains marijuana business subsidies and race-based provisions that likely mean the bill will have zero chance of passing in the Senate or receiving Trump’s support.

The bill, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act (HR 3884), was introduced by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), the committee’s chairman. And the bill’s cosponsors breakdown of 54 Democrats and just one Republican likely gives a good indication of the very lopsided partisan vote the bill would receive on the House floor.

House Democratic leadership settling on the MORE Act as the avenue for legalization appears to indicate they are settling on legalization not happening so long as Republicans control the Senate or Trump is president. They may think that sets up a good campaign issue for Democrats in the 2020 election. We’ll see.

Trump and Republican Congress members opposing the MORE Act can point to the bill going far beyond a hands-off approach of ending marijuana prohibition. Indeed, it would be interesting to see the Senate Republican leadership put forward a bill that just makes the US government butt out in regard to marijuana and then challenge the House Democratic leadership to decide whether it will hold out for adopting welfare for marijuana businesses and expanding race-based programs at the price of allowing the US government’s marijuana prohibition to continue.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) introduced a resolution to the House of Representatives on October 31st titled, “Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Syrian Arab Republic that have not been authorized by Congress.”

The idea of the bill is to remove any troops in Syria that do not have Congressional approval to be there, which is all of them. The resolution says, “Congress has not declared war with respect to, or provided any specific statutory authorization for, United States military participation in any activity related to securing, guarding, possessing, profiting off of, or developing oil fields in northern Syria. All of these actions are unconstitutional.”

The resolution also points out that President Trump’s new plan to stay in Syria to “secure the oil” is a flagrant violation of international law. The resolution says, “Oil, natural resources, and land in Syria belong to the Syrian people, not the United States.”

Although the House was quick to condemn Trump’s withdrawal from northeast Syria to avoid a confrontation with Turkey, his new plan to “secure the oil” has not come under much scrutiny. The language in Gabbard’s bill would make it tough for any member of Congress to argue against it.

Reprinted with permission from Antiwar.com.]]>http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/november/05/tulsi-gabbard-introduces-bill-to-withdraw-troops-from-syria/
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/november/05/tulsi-gabbard-introduces-bill-to-withdraw-troops-from-syria/Tue, 05 Nov 2019 15:33:02 GMT 47 House Members Vote for a Refreshingly Honest Bill Name ChangeAdam Dickhttp://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/july/26/47-house-members-vote-for-a-refreshingly-honest-bill-name-change/

It is a good rule of thumb that bill names in the United States Congress are misleading. A prominent example of that is the USA PATRIOT Act that, instead of supporting the freedom for which American patriots have fought, provides to the US government extensive means to infringe on that freedom.

On Thursday, though, House of Representatives members were offered in an amendment vote the opportunity to replace one such misleading bill name with a name that informs the American people what the bill is really about. Forty-seven House members voted for the change.

The vote came during consideration of the Bipartisan Budget Act (HR 3877). While a budget brings to mind making tough decisions so spending fits within the confines of the ability to pay, here the vote was about removing fiscal restraints so spending can proceed without limit.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) offered on the House floor an amendment to rename the Bipartisan Budget Act. Massie’s amendment would rename the bill as A Bill to Kick the Can Down the Road, and for Other Purposes. Massie’s amendment did not pass, but it did receive 47 votes and help educate people not to judge this bill or other bills by their titles.

Massie is an Advisory Board member for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.]]>http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/july/26/47-house-members-vote-for-a-refreshingly-honest-bill-name-change/
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/july/26/47-house-members-vote-for-a-refreshingly-honest-bill-name-change/Fri, 26 Jul 2019 13:19:36 GMT House Democrats Preparing to Pass Marijuana Legalization with Very Little Republican SupportAdam Dickhttp://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/july/25/house-democrats-preparing-to-pass-marijuana-legalization-with-very-little-republican-support/

During a United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearing earlier this month that appeared to signal the beginning of a move in the House to approve countrywide marijuana legalization legislation, Republican House member, and longtime proponent of rolling back marijuana prohibition, Tom McClintock (R-CA) warned that Democratic members’ apparent focus on weaving race-based policies and new government meddling into legalization legislation could sink support from Republicans.

Now it looks like House Democrats are moving forward with that plan against which McClintock warned. On Tuesday, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee with jurisdiction over marijuana legalization, introduced legalization legislation that includes race-based provisions tied together with marijuana business subsidies that just about ensure the bill will have little support from Republican House members.

Nadler’s bill titled the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (the MORE Act) would require, should it become law, that the “Administrator of the Small Business Administration shall establish and carry out a program, to be known as the ’Cannabis Opportunity Program’ to provide any eligible State or locality funds to make loans under section 7(m) of the Small Business Act (15 16 U.S.C. 363(m)) to assist small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, as defined in section 19 8(d)(3)(C) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 20 637(d)(3)(C)) that operate in the cannabis industry.” This is funded through a national marijuana sales tax established by the bill.

In June of last year, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced in the Senate the Marijuana Freedom and Opportunity Act (reintroduced at S 1552 in this Congress) that, in addition to significantly rolling back marijuana prohibition, includes a very similar provision as does the new House bill. In Schumer’s bill the fund created is called the Marijuana Opportunity Trust Fund. Yet, despite the different name, the Marijuana Opportunity Trust Fund, like the Cannabis Opportunity Program in Nadler’s bill, requires the Small Business Administration to assist small business concerns owned and controlled by women or by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals” as defined in 15 USC 637(d)(3)(C). As I wrote before in regard to the Schumer bill, that wording indicates the group to be provided special advantage by the new program “is presumed to include ‘Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities.’” Examining the effect of the inclusion of this provision in Schumer’s bill on the potential of Republican senators to support the bill, I wrote the following:

In short, included in Schumer’s bill is a special race-and-sex-based subsidy for marijuana businesses. This provides clear reason for Republican senators — many of whom already are wary of supporting a significant marijuana prohibition roll-back — to not support the bill. First, race-and-sex-based government preferences tend not to be popular among Republican voters and politicians. Second, the provision converts the bill from legislation that just takes the small government step of eliminating marijuana-related legal restraints to legislation taking the big government approach of subsidizing marijuana businesses. A Republican Senator who cosponsors or votes for the bill would, in general, be endorsing a new government subsidy and, in particular, be helping fund marijuana businesses — something much different than merely tolerating their existence.

A year after Schumer first introduced his bill in the Senate, the seven cosponsors of the bill are all Democrats, plus independent Bernie Sanders who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. Meanwhile, the version of Schumer’s bill in the House (HR 2843), introduced by a Democratic House member in May, has only Democratic cosponsors — 37 in all.

Expect something similar to occur with support for Nadler’s new bill. In fact, it is off to a similar start. Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-CA), who introduced the Senate version of Nadler’s bill, lists in a Tuesday press release the original cosponsors of the new bill in the Senate and House. Original cosponsor numbers come in at four senators and 27 representatives. The only Republican among them is House member Matt Gaetz of Florida.]]>http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/july/25/house-democrats-preparing-to-pass-marijuana-legalization-with-very-little-republican-support/
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/july/25/house-democrats-preparing-to-pass-marijuana-legalization-with-very-little-republican-support/Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:17:02 GMT House Hearing Provides Rocky Start for Countrywide Marijuana LegalizationAdam Dickhttp://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/july/12/house-hearing-provides-rocky-start-for-countrywide-marijuana-legalization/

A United States House of Representatives subcommittee held a hearing on Wednesday at which countrywide marijuana legalization was considered. The hearing of the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee appears designed to start off deliberative action in the House out of which the advancement of legalization legislation to the House floor will arise. However, the focus by Democratic majority House members on racial issues in the hearing titled “Marijuana Laws in America: Racial Justice and the Need for Reform” suggests the move toward legalization is off to a rocky start.

While the majority of Americans have supported marijuana legalization for years, action in the US House and Senate to accomplish this goal had been blocked by Republican leadership in the two legislative bodies. With Democrats gaining a majority in the House via the November election, the move toward accomplishing the popular legalization objective appears finally to be underway in the House. Indeed, subcommittee Chair Karen Bass (D-CA) concluded her opening comments by indicating that the hearing is the beginning of a process toward overturning current marijuana laws, stating:

There is a growing consensus in this country that current marijuana laws are not appropriate and we must consider reform. Today’s hearing is a first step in that process.

For years, when marijuana law liberalization measures have been considered on the House floor, a much greater percentage of Democratic members have tended to vote for those measures than have Republican members. And the Democratic members’ greater support for legalization has gone along with the higher support for legalization among Democratic voters than among Republican voters. Gallup polling indicates legalization has 75 percent support among Democrats in America and, for the last two years, slim majority support among Republicans. While legalization support among Republican House members still lags, we should see more Republican House members coming on board, in part due to pressure generated by the growth in support among voters, including Republican primary voters, and the continuing expansion of state-level legalization in America.

Over the last few years of Republican control of the House, new marijuana-related amendments were blocked from House floor consideration. Democratic control has meant the reversal of this policy. In this first year of a Democratic majority House, marijuana law liberalization measures have been considered on the House floor. That is just the beginning. Sooner than most people probably expect, a bill legalizing marijuana will likely be on the House floor for a debate and a vote.

While the momentum is strongly behind countrywide marijuana legalization, the potential monkey wrench that can delay that legalization may develop from a partisan divide over how legalization should be accomplished. Democrats who control the House will be tempted to put on the House floor legislation that combines significantly rolling back the war on marijuana or legalizing marijuana along with creating or expanding big-government programs, such as race-based marijuana business subsidies and new welfare programs spending supposedly purposed to rectify problems that marijuana prohibition has caused. An example of such legislation is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) “Democrats only” Marijuana Freedom and Opportunity Act (S 1552).

The Republican resistance to legalization saddled with new government meddling was signaled clearly at the Wednesday hearing by Republican House Member Tom McClintock (R-CA) who has long been a prominent proponent of rolling back the US government’s marijuana prohibition.

McClintock, as acting ranking subcommittee member at the hearing, commented in his opening statement that his preference is for the US government to just butt out regarding marijuana. McClintock stated:

Furthermore, the essence of federalism is deferring to state legislatures on most domestic issues. Louis Brandeis famously observed that a state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

McClintock proceeded to point to the House’s approval last month, with bipartisan support, of an amendment to protect from US government prosecution people complying with state recreational marijuana laws. This, he noted, is a step toward accomplishing the desired federalism objective.

McClintock also suggested in his opening statement why efforts to add onto a legalization bill measures related to race in particular could peel away Republican support. McClintock concluded his opening statement as follows:

I do regret that just as strong bipartisan consensus is emerging on this issue, the majority has decided to play the race card at today’s hearing. We should have only one race in our free country — the American race, and the left does enormous harm every time it tries to divide Americans along racial lines. The fact is that our marijuana laws have badly served all of us as a nation, and this realization could be used to bring us together rather than to tear us apart.

Laws have been tried over many years and have not only failed to achieve their objectives, but have created great harm in the process. I think it’s time to revise and repeal them. I believe we have reached such a moment. And shame on those who would use it to inflame racial divisions.

Democratic House members pushing through the House marijuana legalization coupled with new big-government measures, including those seeking to benefit some people based on their race, is a sure way to greatly reduce or totally block Republican support. And such a bill approved in the House can be expected to go nowhere in the Republican majority Senate and to fail to obtain support from President Donald Trump.

If Democratic House members want marijuana legalization to happen soon, they should support a clean marijuana legalization bill that, as McClintock suggested at the Wednesday House subcommittee hearing, is focused on making the US government butt out.]]>http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/july/12/house-hearing-provides-rocky-start-for-countrywide-marijuana-legalization/
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/july/12/house-hearing-provides-rocky-start-for-countrywide-marijuana-legalization/Fri, 12 Jul 2019 15:26:23 GMT Rep. Thomas Massie Targeted for DefeatAdam Dickhttp://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/july/04/rep-thomas-massie-targeted-for-defeat/reported Wednesday at the Louisville Courier Journal on a apparent effort by national Republican Party figures to defeat United States House of Representatives Member Thomas Massie (R-KY) in the 2020 Republican primary.

Why the effort to defeat Massie? Maybe it is because Massie has been a strong advocate for nonintervention overseas and respect for liberty in America since he won election to the House in 2012.

Want an introduction to why powerful people behind the scenes would like to see Massie exit the House? Check out this April of 2017 interview of Massie at the Ron Paul Liberty Report in which Massie challenges the US government’s interventionism overseas, including via military attacks pursued by both Democratic and Republican presidents:

Massie is a member of the Advisory Board for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.]]>http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/july/04/rep-thomas-massie-targeted-for-defeat/
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/july/04/rep-thomas-massie-targeted-for-defeat/Thu, 04 Jul 2019 15:57:25 GMT Rep. Thomas Massie Prevents House Skeleton Crew from Passing Legislation during RecessAdam Dickhttp://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/may/28/rep-thomas-massie-prevents-house-skeleton-crew-from-passing-legislation-during-recess/

You may think that the United States House of Representatives only passes legislation while in session when members have an opportunity to vote. Not so. On Tuesday, a small group of representatives on the House floor, while most representatives were far afield on recess, sought to quickly approve a 19 billion dollars disaster relief bill and a two-week extension of the National Flood Insurance Program. They would have succeeded, but for the fact that Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) objected on the House floor, preventing the legislation from being approved.

Speaking briefly on the House floor to make his objection to passing the disaster relief bill without a recorded vote of House members, Massie stated: “If the speaker of this House felt that this was must-pass legislation, the speaker of this House should have called a vote on this bill before sending every member of Congress on recess for ten days.”

While Massie’s action may just delay by a few days the House approving the legislation, his action can help ensure that the House meets its obligation of being a deliberative body in which all members, instead of a select subset of members, can vote on whether legislation is approved.

Massie is a member of the Ron Paul Institute’s Advisory Board.]]>http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/may/28/rep-thomas-massie-prevents-house-skeleton-crew-from-passing-legislation-during-recess/
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/may/28/rep-thomas-massie-prevents-house-skeleton-crew-from-passing-legislation-during-recess/Tue, 28 May 2019 22:37:03 GMT Total Deception: US House Votes to ‘Enhance Stabilization of Conflict-Affected Areas and Prevent Violence and Fragility Globally’Adam Dickhttp://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/may/24/total-deception-us-house-votes-to-enhance-stabilization-of-conflict-affected-areas-and-prevent-violence-and-fragility-globally/

The United States government, through arms including the US Department of State and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), has long been promoting violence and destruction in previously relatively peaceful and prosperous places around the world. It has done so through supporting sides in conflicts and stirring up conflicts in an effort to determine who governs — either seeking to prop up or overthrow national governments.

This week, the US House of Representatives passed by a voice vote a bill (HR 2116) titled the Global Fragility Act and carrying this short description of its intent: “To enhance stabilization of conflict-affected areas and prevent violence and fragility globally, and for other purposes.” Having been approved in the House, the bill now can proceed to consideration in the US Senate.

You might expect that the Global Fragility Act would, through actions such as placing limits on or defunding activities of the State Department and USAID, seek stop the US from intervening abroad. That would be a welcome development.

Unfortunately, things tend not to work that way in Washington, DC. In Washington DC “up” is “down” and, as George Orwell wrote about the dystopia in his novel 1984, “war” is “peace.” The Global Fragility Act is a bill to enable the US government to further “break” the world through, among other things, giving the State Department and USAID hundreds of millions of dollars a year to stir up more trouble and further attempt to control who governs in countries around the world.

The bill authorizes appropriating 200 million dollars each of the next five years into a new Stabilization and Prevention Fund administered by the State Department and USAID. And the bill directs that this money be spent on the kinds of purposes typically used to excuse US efforts to support or overthrow governments across the world — supporting “stabilization of conflict-affected areas;” preventing violence; and countering “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, other terrorist organizations, or violent extremist organizations.­”

On top of that, the Global Fragility Act also provides an additional 30 million dollars a year for the next five years to a new Complex Crisis Fund. This fund, the bill directs, will be administered by USAID. The bill states that USAID is to spend the money “to support programs and activities to prevent or respond to emerging or unforeseen foreign challenges and complex crises overseas.” It does not get much more open-ended than that. In short, USAID can use the fund to pursue intervention overseas in just about any way imaginable.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the sponsor of the Global Fragility Act, touted on the House floor this week before the bill was approved by a voice vote that the legislation “gets at the heart of what we want to see from our diplomatic and development efforts around the world: helping places already torn apart by violence to recover and preventing the start of violence in other places where factors are ripe for its outbreak.” Following Engel, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the bill’s lead Republican cosponsor, declared the bill “will make the world a safer place long term.” Don’t believe a word of it. The Global Fragility Act promises to increase US government efforts bringing to the world more violence, more destruction, and more fragility, not less.]]>http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/may/24/total-deception-us-house-votes-to-enhance-stabilization-of-conflict-affected-areas-and-prevent-violence-and-fragility-globally/
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/may/24/total-deception-us-house-votes-to-enhance-stabilization-of-conflict-affected-areas-and-prevent-violence-and-fragility-globally/Fri, 24 May 2019 23:40:21 GMT Rep. Thomas Massie Says Follow the Constitution — No Troops to Venezuela Without a Congressional VoteAdam Dickhttp://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2019/may/11/rep-thomas-massie-says-follow-the-constitution-no-troops-to-venezuela-without-a-congressional-vote/

Interviewed Thursday at Fox Business by host Kennedy, United States House of Representatives Member Thomas Massie (R-KY) strongly objected to the prospect of President Donald Trump sending the US military to Venezuela to help overthrow that country’s government without first obtaining congressional approval.

“On the issue of Venezuela,” explains, Massie, “I don’t care if your favorite Founding Father is Washington or Jefferson or Hamilton or Madison, the one thing they all agreed on is the president does not have the power to commit our troops to war.” Instead, that power resides in the Congress. In short, concludes Massie who says he would vote against military action against Venezuela, “it’s illegal and unconstitutional as hell to send our troops there” without first having a debate and affirmative vote in Congress.

Unfortunately, Massie reveals in the interview, some of Massie’s fellow Congress members are “cowards” who are encouraging congressional leadership not to have a vote in Congress regarding the use of the US military against Venezuela. These Congress members want to dodge responsibility.

Both Democrats and Republicans celebrated the arrest of Julian Assange on Thursday. But amid the flood of praise for his arrest and detainment, which the UN has denounced as a violation of human rights, one lawmaker's comments stood out as particularly repellent.

During an appearance on CNN, West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin on Thursday praised UK police for apprehending Assange (nevermind that critics have blasted his arrest as a violation of national sovereignty) and said that it will "be really good to get him back on United States soil."

To be clear, Assange is an Australian citizen, and before seeking refuge in the embassy, it's unclear when he was last in the US. Our best guess would be this hacking conference in 2010, where he gave the keynote address.

Nevertheless, Manchin added that Assange is now "our property. We can get the facts and the truth from him."

One would think a Democratic senator from the south would avoid allusions to slavery. But Democrats will likely never forgive Assange for the role in played in sinking the candidacy of Hillary Clinton by publishing the DNC and Podesta leaks.

Assange has defended his actions as journalism, but US NatSec hawks have insisted that the publication of the emails was tantamount to Wikileaks working in concert with Russia.

"It will be really good to get him back on United States soil," says @Sen_JoeManchin on Julian Assange's arrest.

In a new interview at Boston Herald Radio, United States House of Representatives Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D-MA) said he expects the House, in the next few weeks, will approve by “an overwhelming vote” legislation requiring the US government to respect states’ marijuana legalization. “We need to make sure that our federal laws do not obstruct what states are doing,” declared McGovern.

McGovern further states in the interview that he believes the legislation will have bipartisan support in the US Senate. The question remains, though: Will Senate leadership also allow a floor debate and vote on such legislation?

McGovern’s new comments, in which he also explains the Rules Committee he chairs will guide the marijuana legislation to the House floor for a vote, are in line with his declaration in November, soon after Democrats won a majority in the House, that US laws had fallen behind as states liberalized marijuana laws and that, as Rules Committee chairman, he would end his Republican predecessor’s years-long practice of blocking marijuana amendments from reaching the House floor for debates and votes.

McGovern’s comments in the Boston Herald Radio interview provide one more indication of the great momentum behind ending marijuana prohibition across America. The Ron Paul Institute (RPI) will be holding a conference on May 18 in Houston, Texas where RPI Chairman Ron Paul and drug war experts will explore the timely topic of ending the war on marijuana, as well as the rest of the war on drugs. You can find out more about the conference and purchase conference tickets here.